You are correct E=mc2 is reversible. Particle accelerators convert energy to mass, but probably aren’t practical storage devices.

Regards
John

You have in the way you have presented your argument, reversed the current power and influence of the advocates of hydrogen storage and the advocates of the electron economy (i.e. using electricity directly). For a number of reasons, hydrogen advocates have gained a role at the table in discussion of sustainable energy solutions for transport that far outweighs the sustainable potential of hydrogen, at least in the next decade or so. See, for instance, Tesla CEO Martin Eberhard’s recent comments on his testimony before the Senate, where a hydrogen advocate from Shell was given the privileged last place to spread more pro-hydrogen hype. The New York Times, also just spent considerable space in a 3-part article about hydrogen that nowhere mentions the main arguments against hydrogen, therefore functioning, temporarily, as an organ of hydrogen hype.

Your patience with hydrogen, while a laudable personal characteristic in certain contexts, does not serve you well in this matter as we are being told by the IPCC among others that action NOW on climate change would be most desirable and most effective. Hydrogen is still a Maybe and a very costly one at that in both financial and energy terms. Batteries and ultracapacitors are out there right now doing the work for countless vehicles on the road in a way that even now is economically sustainable and can be scaled up with sufficient supply, market demand and factoring in the true costs of carbon emissions (carbon tax, cap and trade etc.).

As it did at California Air Resources Board a few years ago, when they killed the ZEV mandate, hydrogen advocacy too often functions as a distraction from what can be done now to mitigate the environmental damage of fossil fuel use. Historically, hydrogen advocacy encourages complacency and a “wait and see” attitude, where immediate action, guided by reason and science, is possible and desirable. Battery electric and other direct electric transport options are here right now or can be made available within the next 5 years. Hydrogen is a ways off and very expensive in terms of money and energy.

Like so many hydrogen advocates, you have, for reasons that are beyond my understanding, taken hydrogen to be an end in itself, something that is worth waiting for no matter what. It seems in places that you have lost sight of the purpose of our attempts to use hydrogen, among other technologies, to create a carbon-neutral, clean form of energy delivery. At the level of the vehicle, sure, you have a tank of hydrogen, a fuel cell or hydrogen combustion engine and you get water out of the tailpipe or drip-pipe as the case may be. But the efficiency of creating the fuel, the H2 or hydride energy storage, whether it be 25% or, as advocates claim 40% efficient, is still, at most, half as efficient as a rechargeable battery in storing electric energy. Do we have double or triple the amount of the renewable clean energy to use for the sake of using a hydrogen fueling/storage system? Now or in the next 10 years, I don’t think so. You or other hydrogen advocates, to my knowledge, have not yet come up with a conceptual model let alone a prototype that exceeds these efficiency numbers.

You also mentioned that hydrogen has a crucial role to play in using fossil fuels more wisely in the next few decades. Again, the use of non-PEM fuel cells (molten carbonate, etc.) or combined cycle power plants to directly convert hydrocarbons into electricity at around 50-70% efficiency is preferable to 25-40% efficiency fuel cycle with hydrogen extracted from the hydrocarbons. The generation of hydrogen from hydrocarbons, as you know, emits carbon, as do the more efficient alternatives, so why not go for the more efficient route?

Finally, you seem to be making a plea for patience as a virtue in the area of scientific and technological progress, that we need to usher in the “disruptive technology”. The thing about disruptive technologies is that they emerge and disrupt…they don’t really require patience on the part of bystanders. I would take a similar attitude to the makers of ultra-high energy density aluminum batteries; their technology is just too speculative right now for me to hold off on advocating the use of lower-energy density batteries. I am all for patience but a bird in the hand (batteries and ultracaps plus renewable electricity), seems to be far more valuable at this point in time than two in the bush (hydrogen in some form from 2-3 times as much renewable electricity). Building out the electron economy eventually may provide the basis for a hydrogen economy but, as I have said, and the Stuart Island folk (who have created a functioning hydrogen storage system for their solar arrays) concur, the hydrogen economy is not Task A or B.

Best regards,

Michael

Well presented post… and I like the framing of the electron economy. The advances in storage are exciting. But I disagree with the narrow framing of ‘electron’ energy as pure battery/capacitor and electrons- without including hydrogen as a critical piece.

These energy conversations can get ruined over emotion- that is not my intention.

I just believe there is a certain logic to H2’s role in this electron economy concept that is being prematurely discarded. I am pro-battery, pro-capacitor and love the advances there- but we cannot rule out the real potential of micro fuel cells and solid state H2 storage.

IMHO – Ulf’s framing is inaccurate when put up against current day breakthroughs in nanoscale designs of catalysts, membranes and high surface area materials that are re-writing the efficiencies to convert, capture and store hydrogen. Ulf, Romm and other leading skeptics paint hydrogen’s role in a world standing still… their assumption of the future is that H2 production/storage will never change. I believe we are only at the beginning of understanding the dynamics of electrons/hydrogen.

I do not see H2 as a cure all. I am not a true believer. I see it as a way to clean up hydrocarbons. And a reasonable way to deliver the highest amount of energy in portable packets – up against issues of safety, performance and market distribution channels.

Reinventing the energy industry is a marathon not a sprint. H2 skeptics are trying to win the sprint- and forgetting that we live in a hydrocarbon economy- with most electrons locked up in those chains.

Coal is expected to power 60% of global electricity production by 2030 and beyond. If we do nothing it will be combustion based conversion. The Electron battery vision does nothing to change this future. Bringing hydrogen (as an electron energy source) into the marketplace equation gives support to gasification systems that can leverage electrochemical (not combustion) conversion. Batteries – regardless of incremental improvements- do not change the way we convert hydrocarbons.

I keep close tabs on latest stage developments at my blog— http://www.garrygolden.net
(see ‘Research Notes’) The pace of change in materials science is healthy – and I am confident that we will soon exit the Hype Cycles ‘trough of disillusionment’ for hydrogen fuel cells. I am patient. And believe there are real market drivers for hydrocarbon incumbents to embrace an electron world with hydrogen as the primary energy carrier.

Imagine if someone would have said – you cannot fly a metal plane with 200 passengers b/c the propellers would have to be too big. They cannot imagine a jet engine. Or if an ‘expert’ in the 1950s said that computers wouldn’t be affordable b/c the vacuum transistors were too expensive and fragile. Not seeing the disruption of silicon chips.

Hydrogen’s disruptive enablers are being built today. H-clusters are being mapped, modeled and reproduced. So I cannot buy into the misleading statements that ‘it’s too hard to produce/convert’ or ‘too difficult to store’. And as much as I love the framing of the ‘Electron Economy’ – to disregard H2’s role in a hydrocarbon economy falls short.

So – all love here. No flaming! I really enjoy your insights! Just trying to challenge the assumptions about the future and the role of hydrogen in this vision!!

Best, Garry
http://www.garrygolden.net –
Blog ‘Dark enough to see the stars’

Good article and good summary of the state of energy storage.

Here is some additional info on EEStor. Their patent number 7,033,406 describes the system and the fifteenth claim includes the text: “The method of claim 1 wherein the method provides a EESU which can be safely charged to 3500 V and store at least 52.22 kWh of electrical energy.”

I believe their plan is to charge the capacitor to 3500 V, which takes advantage of the voltage squared characteristic of capacitive storage (Energy = 1/2 * Capacitance * Voltage squared).
This has been thought of before and begs the question; do you really want a 3500V battery within a vehicle? Car manufacturers can’t even make the change from 12V to 42V let alone 3500 V! Moreover, the stored energy is not in a useful form and must be converted to a level compatible with other necessary equipment (the motor, braking system, air conditioning system). This conversion is expensive and inefficient. I haven’t run all the numbers, but experience makes me very skeptical. Remember also that not all of the 52 kWHr will be available. Typical conversion system are only practical down to 1/2 voltage, which already reduces the stored energy to two thirds of the original value (approx. 30 kWhr).